Although the decision to sack Pete Best was unanimous among the other members of The Beatles, they later expressed regret at the way in which it was handled.
We weren’t very good at telling Pete he had to go. But when it comes down to it, how do you tell somebody? Although Pete had not been with us all that long – two years in terms of a lifetime isn’t very long – when you’re young it’s not a nice thing to be kicked out of a band and there’s no nice way of doing it. Brian Epstein was the manager so it was his job, but I don’t think he could do it very well either. But that’s the way it was and the way it is.
News of Pete Best’s split from The Beatles broke in the 23 August edition of Bill Harry’s Mersey Beat. The story claimed that the decision was amicable, but it didn’t prevent an uproar among The Beatles’ fans. Hundreds of girls signed petitions in protest at Best’s ousting, and some kept an all-night vigil outside Mona Best’s house.
Some of the fans – a couple of them – were shouting ‘Pete is best!’ and ‘Ringo never, Pete Best forever!’, but it was a small group and we ignored it. However, after about half an hour it was gretting a bit tiring so I shouted to the audience. When we stepped out of the band room into the dark tunnel, some guy nodded me one, giving me a black eye.
Anthology
Brian Epstein offered to create another group around Best, but was turned down. Left depressed by his change of fortune, he later joined Lee Curtis and the All Stars, which later reformed without the frontman as Pete Best and the All Stars. The group signed to Decca Records, although their debut single I’m Gonna Knock On Your Door was not a hit.
Best later moved to the US where he played with the Pete Best Four, which later became the Pete Best Combo. An album, Best Of The Beatles, was released by Cameo Records, but was said to have disappointed many record buyers expecting a Beatles compilation.
In 1968 Best left the music industry, and often refused to discuss his time with The Beatles. Depressed at their unstoppable fame and fortune, Best made a suicide attempt, but was talked out of it by his mother Mona and his brother Rory.
Pete Best married Kathy in 1968; they had two daughters, Babs and Bonita. He became a civil servant for 20 years and in 1988 formed the Pete Best Band. Eventually he began to talk once more about The Beatles, giving interviews and working as technical advisor for the TV film Birth Of The Beatles.
In 1995 the Anthology 1 album contained a number of tracks with Best on drums. He is estimated to have made up to £4 million in royalties, although he did not participate in the book or documentary series. Poignantly, on the cover artwork Best’s head was obscured by a picture of Ringo Starr, although he was pictured leaning against Neil Aspinall’s van outside the Cavern.
In November 1995 Best appeared in an advertisement for Carlsberg lager, which was shown during a commercial break in the Anthology TV series. The tag line was “Probably the Pete Best lager in the world.”
The Pete Best Band regularly performs in the US and elsewhere, in which Best shares drumming duties with his younger brother Roag. Their repertoire included songs from The Beatles’ early set, including ‘My Bonnie’, Twist and Shout, ‘Money (That’s What I Want)’, and ‘One After 909’.
The group’s 2008 album, Hayman’s Green, consisted entirely of new material, and was named after the area of Liverpool where the Casbah Coffee Club is located.
Wow! If there ever was a person with a solid desire to commit suicide. Pete Best has got to have one helluva strong character to have forged on after being left out of the Beatles at the moment they were hitting the big time! My props to him for sure!
I agree, I can’t imagine how hard it was for him. I also have major props for how zen he is about it all now. It truly show how strong a character he has. I really do believe things happen for a reason. I hope that it became clear and gave him some peace of mind. How wonderful that his early recordings with the Beatles were included in the 1st Anthology. Now hopefully Pete’s financially set for a happy and do whatever you want retirement.
Yes, Pete Best got raw deal, uet he endured and kept playing, eventually becoming a multi-millionaire after ‘Anthology’.
Thank Neil Aspinall for this.
Ringo was better drummer and final piece for Beatles.
Well, actually Ringo Star wasn’t a better drummer. But he was a better Beatle ?
I recently began wondering whether the sacking of PB had more to do with the complicated implications of Neil Aspinall impregnating Mona Best in December 1961 (Vincent Best b. August 1962), instead of the often cited reasons like drumming, more attractive, more aloof. As the crucial ramping up period (Jan/62-Sept/62) with Brian Epstein and marketing became more critical….might the boys have considered the Mona-Neil situation problematic to their success?
Have a listen to Pete’s hamfisted performance on Love Me Do-Anthology 1. There’s your answer. If Pete didn’t get sacked….imagine a world without Rubber Soul or Revolver or….Ringo forever!!!
From what I’ve heard, John and Paul wanted Ringo in the band the first time they met him which was in August 1960 after the Beatles first arrived in Hamburg, but Ringo was in a much more popular group at the time, so they didn’t think they could get him. Sounds like Petes sacking was inevitable from the moment they met Ringo. It was just a matter of time and the Beatles becoming more successful.
That’s an interesting point that you mentioned – it would’ve been a different story had The Beatles’ original line-up either been John, Paul, George, Stuart and Ringo or if it had been the iconic line-up of John, Paul, George and Ringo from the outset.
John dismissed the accusations of jealousy as a myth and acknowledged that Pete was only recruited as they were in dire need of a drummer to go to Hamburg as well as how they intended to always fire him once they found a decent drummer.
The often overlooked thing about Pete Best was that he had a boxing family and in common parlance was “dead hard” (something Mark Lewishon backs up in Tune In) . Having someone around who could handle himself when your playing tough Liverpool clubs and Hamburg would be a definite asset (I doubt McCartney and Sutcliffe would be much use in those situations) . But as the gigs got more upmarket under Brian Epstein this talent was much less needed and was another factor in his departure . This was also probably why they got Epstein to fire him – he was less likely to get punched than the others !
But there’s no getting away from the fact that the main reason he was fired was because he couldn’t play drums very well …. if you asked most people interested in music to play drums for eight hours a day seven days a week I’m sure many would improve more than Pete (unless the 1962 recordings represent his playing peak from something much much worse that is !) .
Probably/possibly inadvertently, John himself gave Pete a high compliment when he said in a post-break-up interview, “Our best work was never recorded”, referring to the pre-fame 1960-62 days & the excitement that the group generated on-stage in Hamburg & Liverpool. Who was involved in making this “best work”? Pete, that’s who. Even though this work was never recorded for posterity, it was still consider to be their best by the founder of the group. If I were Pete, I would take that as a compliment.
I think it’s unfair to compare Pete & Ringo by recordings alone. For professional recordings with Pete, what do we really have?:
1. The Hamburg Recordings – even though they were used mostly as sidemen, the recordings were still good enough to be released to the public at the time.
2. The Decca Audition – By all accounts, everyone was nervous that day, and it shows. A very pale representation of what the group was capable of at the time. An audition, not a true recording session.
3. The June ’62 EMI Recordings – More nerves. Paul himself admits to having the “screaming heebie-jeebies” when George Martin changed the vocal structure for “Love Me Do”. Accounts still vary as to whether this was an audition, an artist test, or a proper recording session.
By contrast, we have dozens of recordings with Ringo for reference. Kind of lopsided. I think the Liverpool fans & musicians of the time who were there are really the most qualified to judge…
Lennons also on record as saying ” we were desperate and needed a drummer, pete best was available and after a time he could just about keep a simple beat going, but we planned on kicking him out as soon as we could find a half decent replacement drummer.
John was very contradictory and his words should always be taken with a pinch of salt, he changed his views all the time depending on what mood he was un
Another thought – Just exactly how long had they been performing/rehearsing “Love Me Do” before they tried it out at EMI? By all accounts, this was a very early pre-Beatles song. Maybe they had just pulled it out of mothballs & Pete wasn’t that familiar with it yet. Just a thought…
No, the arrangement was different for LOVE ME DO in June than it was in September. According to witnesses or the assistant producer and Pete Best, they were not happy with the arrangement of LOVE ME DO. During the June 5 recording session, the Beatles were trying to do the song in a similar style to a current hit at the time by Bruce Channel, HEY BABY. If you listen to HEY BABY, and then listen to the June 62 version of LOVE ME DO, you can hear what they were attempting. They were told to change that arrangement. Over the next three month they changed the arrangement of the song. (All the while searching for a new drummer by their present drummers back). If you were to walk into the Cavern in early August of 62, you would have heard THE BEATLES performing LOVE ME DO (Then an unreleased song) with Pete Best on drums, playing the same arrangement of the song that would be recorded on Sept 4th and 11th. You will notice that Martin did not find out that Pete had been fired until they walked in the door for that Sept 4th session- London’s a long way from Liverpool and the Beatles were still a club band without a record. There was no session drummer on that day, so Pete would have played on LOVE ME DO again. Also, Martin didn’t like any drummers that played in the clubs, few British producers did, and didn’t like Ringo either. Hence the sessions drummer for the 11th.
It’s not only Pete Best that sounds bad on the June recording session, it sounds like a missed opportunity for the band. But unlike the others he didn’t get a second chance to practice and improve three months later.
I think Pete Best is pretty good on the Tony Sheridan recordings, and his playing on the Decca audition tapes aren’t better or worse than the others, and those recordings aren’t much better or worse than the Sheridan recordings almost a year earlier. I think it reveals that The Beatles really started to develop from the released September version of “Love Me Do”, I guess Pete Best never got the chance to go from amateur to professional, which seems to make a big difference for the band and made them start to develop faster in a matter weeks than they had from the early days of The Quarrymen to “Love Me Do”.
Just a few additions to my earlier post: On the Hamburg recordings, the drums are very much in the background, none of this “Mersey Beat”/Hamburg 4-in-the-bar stomp that we’ve all heard about. From what I understand (correct me if I’m wrong on this), Pete wasn’t allowed to use his full kit during the sessions, which would dilute the power of the songs considerably (On a side note, I’ve heard the Bernard Purdie overdubs & they don’t seem to add much, except maybe a little brightness).
Yes, arrangements play a factor in this also. Compare the 1/62 version of “Besame Mucho” (with Pete) to the live Star-Club version (with Ringo) from 12/62. Very similar. Yet the 6/62 EMI version is a much more low-key arrangement with no background vocals. Whose doing was this? Interesting how both “Besame Mucho” and “Love Me Do” were re-arranged for this 1st EMI session. Subconscoious sabotage, maybe?? Who knows?
The Beatles have had a history of drummer woes, going back to the very beginning. John & Paul had been together since ’57, John, Paul & George had been together since ’58, & those 3 had a solid 2 years to get tight with each other before Pete came along in ’60. Age also plays a factor. Paul & George were both younger than John & followed his lead & looked up to him. Pete was older than both Paul & George, didnt feel the need to follow & did his own thing, which the other 3 should’ve respected since that’s what The Beatles were supposedly all about in the first place. Although Pete says that he was closer to John than he was to either Paul or George. John looked up to no one, except possibly Stu, but Stu was out of the equation by mid-’61 anyway.
Even though Ringo was closer to the other 3 than Pete ever was, this problem still cropped up later when he walked out in ’68 during the White Album sessions. The other 3 carried on without him, that’s why there’s finished tracks on that album where Ringo is not the drummer. Contrast that to what happened 6 months or so later when George walked out of the Get Bacl/Let It Be sessions. Everything basically ground to a halt or drifted aimlessly until the situation could be resolved. Ringo himself said that he felt like an outsider (at least that’s the party line anyway). Being drummer-less for so long in the beginning created a bond between the other 3 that no one could ever completely breach.
A very good analysis. Best did not understand the three core members had gone through a few drummers (Tommy Moore was reported to be George’s favorite per Allan Williams in his book) and they WERE the Beatles and the drummer was expendable. Best was quiet and cultivated the James Dean moody persona which was popular with the girls at that time but it did not fit the image Epstein was trying to cultivate. Also, his hair was curly so he could not adopt the mop top style which set him apart further. His biggest mistake was to not understand that when he was getting a lot of attention from the girls this was annoying the other three. There was a Mersey Beat article and other publications that referred to them as Pete Best and the Beatles. Best should have realized he was causing problems but he was just 20 years old so this is understandable. So Best was kicked out. When Ringo got sick during their first world tour in June, 1964, he was replaced by Jimmy Nicol for two weeks without a hitch. Nicol even reportedly received 5000 fan letters for his short effort. Ringo accepted his place as the least Beatle perfectly and the rest is history.
Thinking about how Pete was in between John, Paul & George age-wise… Maybe within the group’s mindset, he was kind of like the overlooked “middle child”…
Anyone who’s been to school in the UK should know that it’s not your date of birth that matters , it’s what school year you’re in . Lennon and Best were in the same year (different schools of course) , McCartney a year below and Harrison a year below him (both Starr and Sutcliffe were a year ahead of Lennon and Best) . The school year runs from Sept to August . I don’t think they ever matched up their ages by months . The eight months between McCartney and Harrison could have put them in the same year intake if the birth dates had fallen differently !
For what it’s worth (even though the sound quality is lousy), I think that the early BBC recordings with Pete give a better representation of his drumming than the studio recordings do, although you have to pay attention.
On which BBC recordings did Pete Best play the drums?
Six songs.
1. Teenagers Turn-Here We Go
Br. 8 March 1962
Rec. 7 March 1962
Playhouse Theatre, Manchester
– Memphis Tennessee, Dream Baby, Please Mister Postman
2. Here We Go
Br. 15 June 1962
Rec. 11 June 1962
Playhouse Theatre, Manchester
– Ask Me Why, Besame Mucho, A Picture Of You
If you have been in a band yourself you know that there a two things that count:
How well do you play and how do you get along with the rest of the band. Pete didn’t play too well and he didn’t get along too well with the other three / four.
So it was time for a new drummer! (And George Martin gave them the final push to do this).
Exactly . The last band I was in , myself and the guitarist couldn’t stand the drummer , When we broke up , the guitarist and I stayed friends but neither of us ever had a reason to talk the drummer again – since 12 years ago !
All music played in the early 60’s was simple three chord songs. Guitar work as well as drum work was not that complicated. George Martin did not want The Beatles to get rid of Pete Best. When The Beatles did get rid of Pete, Ringo was playing the drums for the EMI recording of Love Me Do. George Martin was not pleased with Ringo’s drumming either and that’s when he brought in Andy White to play drums.
The Beatles improved as time went on and the same would have been with Pete Best. Early music was catchy and simple and only became more complicated as members matured and learned that there were more then three cord songs to be made.
As someone who lived through the early 60’s, I can tell you for a fact that not “all music played in the early 60’s was simple three chord songs” as you have stated.
The following songs have more than three chords (listed with respective recording artists) are an example: Do You Wanna Dance ( Bobby Freeman), Runaround Sue ( Dion), Runaway ( Del Shannon), Take Good Care Of My Baby ( Bobby Vee), Stand By Me ( Ben E. King), Town Without Pity ( Gene Pitney), Sea Of Heartbreak (Don Gibson), and Teenage Idol ( Ricky Nelson).
Pete Forever Ringo Never
Bruh, no.
Do not troll!
I didn’t know about the suicide attempt. It must be horrible when the band that kicked you out are always on the radio, the TV and the papers, selling shedloads of records, playing sellout concerts… I don’t know if I feel sorry for him, as he clearly didn’t make the grade as a drummer, and is far richer than I’ll ever be, but it must have been a really tough time.
Justice was served when he made a substantial amount of money from Anthology, although he had to wait a long time for it. He had the last laugh after being known as the world’s biggest loser for over 30 years. It would be to his credit if he admitted that Ringo was a better fit in the Beatles than him, even if he doesn’t want to concede that Ringo was a superior drummer.
Whilst I sympathise with Pete, he is clearly a man in denial. How else do you deal with the fact that you were in a band which changed the world for two years, only to be sacked on the eve of their breakthrough? Having read Mark Lewisohn’s book however, it’s clear that, whilst he played drums for the Beatles, he was never a full member of the band. Pete did his own thing – he went off on his own after the gigs, he didn’t share the others’ sense of humour and he didn’t hang out with them. If he’d been a great drummer, this might not have mattered so much but he had poor timing, tended to play the same pattern for every song and didn’t seem interested in improving. He was ok for the clubs but once in a recording studio his deficiencies were nakedly apparent. He had several opportunities to address this but didn’t. Sorry Pete, but you’ve only yourself to blame. Enjoy the money you made from Anthology and accept reality.
Leave the last word to guitarman, he’s got it right!
If one listens to the various attempts at Love Me Do with Mr Best , Starr , and White (ref You Tube) , it appears to me that Mr Best was playing a very early incarnation of the song.
As a musician , and most would agree , songs take “time” to develop , the recording engineers were reported as being very picky over drum tracks , and mainly used “session” drummers because “time was money”, a session drummer having the ability to “lay it down” without too much fuss.
History shows that Ringo was not used on some early recordings , therefore the reason for Mr Best sacking could not have been fundamentally a drumming issue(?)
If one studies the recording of Love Me Do (see You Tube) , it is quite apparent that several drummers were used to attempt the recording.
Studios in the early 1960s used mainly session drummers , probably more economical as “time was money” , and the tracks could could be laid down very quickly.
Mr Best was set aside , as was Mr Starr because that was label policy , all that was required was a commercial product , readied quickly for distribution.
The reasons for Mr Bests sacking are numerous , but i feel that the drumming ability was not the main issue by 1962.
Having read the Extended Edition of Mark Lewisohn’s book, I don’t think that Ringo was set aside because of label policy. George Martin had already booked Andy White to play on the 4 September session. He had heard Pete’s drumming and decided that he wasn’t good enough to record. Consider also that George was ‘told’ to record the Beatles. In the meantime, the Beatles sacked Pete because, if they’d kept him, they would have been forced to use session drummers. There was a question mark over whether Pete would have been able to produce what they wanted in a ‘live’ situation. I would agree that drumming ability was not the main issue but it was one of a number of issues that made the other three Beatles’ minds up.
That is clearly wrong. Martin was set to record Sept. 4 with Pete (no session drummer was present), and was upset with Epstein when they showed up with Ringo instead (who Martin didn’t know, of course). Since the session produced no master for release, the Beatles were brought back on Sept. 11. The producer of THAT session, Ron Richards, was the one who brought in Andy White as he wasn’t taking any more chances on the drummer with this new group.
Several sources, including Lewisohn’s books, back this up.
I think the biggest problem for both Pete and obviously to a lesser extent Ringo, was that Paul was a better drummer than both of them.
No way. Paul is an average drummer while Ringo was really good for his time.
First post so go easy on me…
My feeling is that the issue with best was more one of personality rather than of ability. Pete was renowned as one of the best drummers in liverpool and from the early tapes of the band with him and in the studio i don’t think starr’s early performances are significantly better. The chances are best may well have got better and more adept in a studio environment with time – much like ringo did.
No – the issue was more harrison and mccartney trying to get best out the group. Mccartney was clearly jealous of pete’s success as a heartthrob and harrison apparently didn’t like him from an early stage and had been pushing for ringo to replace him. Lennon i think had other things to think about at that point (he had just found out cynthia was pregnant) so i’m not sure how involved he was in the plot to oust best.
So i do have a lot of sympathy with best,for whilst its now obvious that ringo’s easy going personality and huge workrate made him a better fit for the group than the moodier character of best, you still have to see it from pete’s view. Believing that it wasn’t because ringo was better than him is probably how he has survived down the years so you can’t really grudge him that viewpoint.
I like to think the inclusion of the material with best on anthology1 was and the resulting royalties was the bands belated way of saying “sorry”. He has to be one of the unluckiest musicians ever !
Pete was obviously a talented guy who could play decently. The recordings, in my opinion, show Ringo to have a great sense of timing & a good simple straightforward ability to apply the most appropriate beat to a song.
Pete seems not to sound as comfortable in his timing or application of beat. This I think was contributory in his dismissal, however, the fact that he was a girlie magnet couldn’t have done him any good with either Paul, John or George.
His solitary nature would also have kept him from making that close bond with the others, bands do need to feel close on & off the stage.
I have no doubt that Pete was held in high esteem as a drummer in Liverpool, the German recordings confirm this, they are very catchy tracks tightly & energetically performed.
In short Pete was sacked because Ringo could fit in in every way more comfortably than Pete could; it was a recipe that tasted better that way.
I think the way he was told was deplorable, the others admit to a cowardice & Pete as a human being & fellow musician deserved better, however, history has shown us how great they became & any band with a legacy like that has, I feel, made it’s point & written it’s own epitaph.
Why was Pete sacked ? I know why. I play in a band myself and we have had our share of personell changes. If a guy doesn’t fit it, it can become a big deal, even though he might be doing his best. We had this guy who always turned up when all the equipment was already set up and who was leaving right after the last note was played. So he was sacked for that reason. No big deal, but in Pete’s case it worse because the Beatles became bigger than life. As an example : no-one ever made a big deal of the fact that Tony Jackson was fired from the Seachers. For the record, I knew Pete in the eighties, and I love him. I’m very glad that things turned out well for him.
I’m glad he at least got some cash from the Anthology recording.
People have been kicked out of groups, and companies, and clubs and what-have-you since the beginning of time, because they didn’t fit in. It only seems more tragic in this case because of the Beatles’ huge success. But the simple phrase “He didn’t fit in” covers it all.
I think that you have to view everything in context and ONLY the circumstances up to the point when the decision was made …the ages of the Beatles, a male dominated British society, a music scene where a group had to have a front-man, etc. Pete was part of tipping point when they came back from Hamburg and played Litherland Town Hall. As John said they were at their best, no buts.Stu became a member even though he couldn’t play a note and Pete’s drumming wasn’t good enough??? Give me a break. Pete was getting most of the attention from the female fans and he also had his own feature spot in the act. And the hair style thing ? Freda Kelly said in her movie that Pete couldn’t change his hair style because his hair was too kinky. EVERYTHING else that comes after is irrelevant when discussing Pete’s dismissal, because it’s tainted with an agenda, bias, 20/20 vision etc. Even if it’s said by John, Paul and George.
Bottom line…Pete Best’s legacy will live on because he was an integral part of the Beatles story. His name will be repeated and circumstances discussed long after we are all gone. Current stars, like Katy Perry, will just be another name, in a long list of female singers who were successful around 2010.
Hey we are still talking about it over 50 + years later….isn’t it fun to be a Beatles fan!!!
John Lennon said Pete was a better drummer but Ringo was a better Beatle. I think that sums it up
Cite the source. I’ve never seen such a quote and it is in direct conflict with other quotes from Lennon on the subject.
Hector,
John Lennon said that Best was only recruited because they needed a drummer to go to Hamburg. “We were pretty sick of Pete Best, too, because he was a lousy drummer, you know? …And we were always going to dump him when we could find a decent drummer”…”By the time we rolled back from Germany we’d trained him to keep a, you know, a stick to keep going up and down at four in the bar, he couldn’t much else.” Anthology
Having been pushed out of a group into which I invested four years of my life, I know exactly how that feels – especially in light of the fact that, had I not put in that time, there would have been no group to take over. Did Pete feel used? I don’t doubt it – I know I sure was. At least he was able to get something out of it … eventually.
“And in the end … the cash you get … is equal to the wish … to keep your mouth shut.”
Best played with the band for two years in good times and bad if he did not fit in or get along with the other band members why not kick him out sooner? As far as not being a good drummer we must ask the same question why not kick him out sooner? The truth is the three other Beatles Were sellouts. Martin wanted to use a session drummer & they got cold feet and thought they would lose the record deal if they did not act fast. None of the Beatles were good musicians at the time. If Martin would have suggested to use a guitar player for the recording Harrison would have been out or maybe Paul. I also believe the story about other Beatles being jealous especially Paul, after all he later became the favorite with the ladies, what a coincidence. He does come across as a diva. Some had said Johnny Hutchinson the drummer from the Big 3 not ringo was the first choice to replace Pete Best ,why?. And as far as ringo being a better drummer he played a 4/4 big deal. Even today when he plays with his all star band or on other occasions he plays alongside another drummer. The Beatles became a great band but none of them became great musicians. It is said Paul won’t answer any direct questions about Pete Best, seems a little coweredly. Years later Michael Jackson would out bid him for the complete set of Beatles music after Paul suggested he should invest in music. Now that’s karma. I guess Paul should have seen it coming. He did take all those trips to India in the 60s.
Does anybody know when the picture on page 3 was taken?
i think john lennon answered it well when asked was ringo the best drummer in the rock world answer he wasnt even the best drummer in the beatles
John never said that about Ringo! Apparently it is a quote from comedian Jasper Carrot from 1983. Often misattributed to John. https://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/john-lennon/ringo-isnt-even-the-best-drummer-in-the-band/
If you had up all of Pete Best’s work with the Beatles, it wouldn’t equal just one of Ringo’s “drum fills”.
I think it was more a matter of The Beatles wanting Ringo than not wanting Pete. I read somewhere in my myriad Beatles books that when one Beatle was in the room, it was amazing; two, it was breathtaking; three, unbelievable, and four, nothing short of magic. Surely, the lads knew this when Ringo became a part of their scene.
If I were to compile a “fantasy”-type album of Pete Best/Beatles tracks, it would go like this…
The two Beatles-only Hamburg songs (“Ain’t She Sweet” & “Cry For A Shadow”), the 15-song Decca audition, & the EMI recording of “Besame Mucho” (I know “Besame” is on the Decca tapes already, but both versions are different arrangements).
I would pointedly NOT include the June ’62 recording of “Love Me Do”, because that recording alone, more than any other, revealed Pete’s shortcomings & sealed his fate. If I were to do a Pete Best/Beatles album, I’d at least try to put Pete in the most positive light possible.
I saw Pete Best and his band play, several years ago. I also briefly met him and he was a very nice man, of extremely shy and quiet. But if the truth is to be told, he wasn’t a very good drummer. I am a professional drummer, by trade, so I can say this with some authority. That said-I’m not saying it to be an a*****e. On the occasion I saw him play, he had a second drummer doing most of the heavy work. Pete basically played the same groove every song-which I heard was a complaint that the Beatles had with him, back in the day. Not to mention, his refusal to change his hairstyle to the iconic ‘comb forward’ cut of the rest. And there there’s Ringo…despite what people may think, Ringo is an excellent drummer, with unmatched feel. And I can see the Beatles, being the ambitious young men they were, wanting someone of his caliber in the band Especially after he sat in with them one night, filling in for Pete. The difference must have been night and day. I’m just glad fairness prevailed and Pete received some riches from his time in the Fab Four, even if it was later in life.
Pete Best did not refuse to conform to The Beatle haircut. His hair was too coarse & curly—Stu’s Girlfriend, Astrid said this herself so it’s documented that Best did not actually refuse to don a Beatle haircut. And I have yet to see Pete Best himself stating he refused the look of a Beatle haircut. He would have no reason to if his hair wasn’t coarse & curly so that was the reason. A person is just not going to be able to sport a Beatle cut with coarse, kinky, curly hair.
“Personally, I kept my hair as it was, upswept, as it is to this day. No other member of the group ever made any mention to me of conforming and the style was certainly never an agreed ‘must’. Nor did Brian Epstein ever give me an instruction about growing a fringe when he took over later in the year. During my time as a Beatle this style was not considered to be some sort of trademark. And who would ever have foreseen that Astrid’s simple experiment with Stu would eventually result in half the male population of the world getting in on the act and some worried nations like Indonesia even going so far as to pass laws making Beatle cuts illegal!”
From Beatle! The Pete Best Story, p94-5.
Check the first paragraph of this article. Isn’t Pete’s full name Randolph Peter Best (with Pete going by his middle name similar to Paul)?
Also, does anyone know if “Randolph’s Party” from “In His Own Write” actually about Pete?
I have played in bands where one member (and it is usually the drummer for some reason) just doesn’t fit in with the others but you are too busy to get shot of them until something serious happens (like an EMI contract …) . Pete just didn’t fit in personally and what sounds good live really gets its weaknesses shown up in a recording studio . He was a poor drummer and Ringo was on an entirely different level both on the kit and as a person . I think one very good reason that they left the sacking to Brian Epstein was because Pete was a rugby player who came from a boxing family and the others were wary as he was probably much harder than them and someone could have got seriously hurt !
Tony Barrow made some dubious comment that John allegedly stated that Pete Best was a good drummer, but Ringo was a good Beatle, but I highly doubt that John would have said such a thing, given that he never once minced his low opinion of Pete’s drumming abilities and in a 1974 interview, he dismissed him as a lousy drummer who never improved. In that interview, he dismissed the allegations that Paul was jealous of Pete as a myth and he was only recruited, because they needed a drummer to go to Hamburg, and that they (John, Paul and George) were always intending to dump him once they found a decent drummer (Ringo).
On the other hand, John clearly had high regard of Ringo’s drumming abilities and the pair were very good friends as well as bandmates, going on holiday together and living so near each other in Surrey, so they had a very good friendship right up until the end of John’s life.
John even invited him to play drums on his solo album “Plastic Ono Band”, sold Tittenhurst Park to him and helped him out on some of his solo albums.
I was fairly convinced there had to be some juicy story here, but having read the various accounts, I don’t actually think there’s anything more to it than what’s on the tin, so to speak. It’s notable that Brian offered to create a band around Pete, and Pete turned him down flat. Probably just due to being hurt and too young to appreciate the opportunity. But that’s just it – he was older than Paul or George, it’s unlikely either of them would have made that sort of mistake.
I’m something of an expert on screaming mindlessly over dreamy guys in bands, and believe me, Paul wanting to muscle Pete out so he could be the heartthrob just doesn’t make sense. Paul’s appeal was his cute baby-faced sweetness. It’s the “first boyfriend” archetype, which is appealing to a totally different sort of girl. Pete was good-looking in a much more adult way, and it was much too edgy and intense to sell to 15 year olds. If you’ve seen the press reels from their first visit to the US, you can appreciate that “brooding and aloof” was wildly off-brand and impossible to gel with what was working full them during that era.
Ringo had two qualities that I see as critical in rounding out the other three. One, he could riff in a very pleasant, casual way that filed the edges off John’s barbed wit, which made the group come across as cheeky rather than smug or impertinent. He also shared the commitment to treating the band – musically and socially – as a full-time job and also a team sport. Paul’s anecdote about Pete regularly coming in and going to sleep around 10am, right when the other three were starting to practice – that says it all. Either you want it badly enough to take it seriously, or you don’t.
Considering Pete Best’s female fans were mainly 15 or 16 year-olds as well, your logic doesn’t make a great deal of sense. I never understood why Best was considered particularly handsome compared to the others, not then, not now. He was of his time, standard moody looks from the James Dean era, as others have pointed out. It was over by the time the Beatles arrived. Your take on Paul as ‘first boyfriend material’ is so patronizing as to be laughable. Speak for yourself and stop treating his female fans as idiots. He was seriously good looking, end of. Apart from the fact that they were ALL baby-faced in the beginning, people behind the scenes knew ‘cute’ Paul McCartney attracted women of all ages, innocent or otherwise, which is why he was labeled the cute one because the hot one was considered highly inappropriate for young fans in 1964 puritanical America. If the others were jealous or annoyed about Pete it was because their budding songwriting and musical skills were being sidelined by his female fans dominating the performances. They were driven to succeed and Pete wasn’t. As someone else pointed out here, the Beatles had never really settled on the right drummer for them at the time. If Brian Epstein had come along six months later Ringo may have become available and Pete replaced anyway. Best was contracted as a Beatle by default which was unfortunate for him and unfortunate for the Beatles. There is no reason for anybody to be blamed in my opinion.
Having played in many bands and endured members who don’t fit in but are kept on for differing reasons, I think the beatles kept pete for several practical reasons important to a small time band :
1. He had a house where the band’s equipment could be stored.
2. He had a mate who had a van (neil aspinal)
3. His mother would book gigs
4. He would turn up for gigs and rehearsals (an asset not to be underestimated in most bands I’ve been in!)
5. And not least, he was a hard case from a boxing family – very useful at Liverpool gigs I would think!
When Brian Epstein took over, all of these factors became irrelevant, so the fact that his drumming was poor came to a head and they could now attract Ringo!
By the way, I’m not a drummer but if you stuck me (and almost anyone I would think) in a club and made me play 10 hours a night every day for months we’d be better drummers than Pete – sorry to say but the man had no real aptitude for the drums.